[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper
From: |
Janek Warchoł |
Subject: |
Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:07:22 +0200 |
2013/4/23 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
>> Technically speaking, you are 100% correct. I agree that talking
>> doesn't get the job done, and i understand the frustration when
>> someone reminds you about an issue that you remember very well but
>> don't have time to tackle.
>
> It's not just that "I don't have time". It is that there is a bunch of
> related issues I'd rather see tackled previously.
Similarly with me.
>> However, could you say thins in a manner that is encouraging rather
>> than discouraging?
>
> Encouraging what?
LilyPond development in general. I.e. in a manner that makes people
have more motivation to work on LilyPond (even if we don't end up
working on MusicXML, which would admittedly be preferred in this
case).
>> As for Urs' involvement, i'd say one thing: there are many ways of
>> moving things forward and not all of them involve writing code.
>
> Sure. But we are in the situation of promoting participation in a race
> without anybody bothering about minor details like axles or wheels.
> Yes, it's nice that we have an engine in our basement and it is working
> fabulously for powering our house.
i admit that we have a problem. I don't know what else i can do
besides what i'm doing; i'm asking people if they'd like to join
development but i didn't have much sucess so far.
>> A musicologist may search for sponsors and spread the word among
>> publishers, and Urs is doing exactly that. Sure, eventually someone
>> needs to write the code.
>
> But what word are we spreading? "Can it work with our existing scores
> and data, possibly through MusicXML?" "No, but if it could, it would
> likely be the best at it."
yeah, that's bad. But it's not like Lily has only "potential"
capabilities: scores can be done using it, with good results.
Bottom line: i'd also like the situation to be better before starting
serious "adverstising". But if we wait too long, we won't arrive at
anything.
In other words: if we practice too long, we'll miss the performance.
Janek
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, (continued)
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, Urs Liska, 2013/04/22
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, Janek Warchoł, 2013/04/22
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, Urs Liska, 2013/04/22
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, David Kastrup, 2013/04/22
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, Urs Liska, 2013/04/22
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, David Kastrup, 2013/04/22
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, Urs Liska, 2013/04/23
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, David Kastrup, 2013/04/23
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, Janek Warchoł, 2013/04/23
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, David Kastrup, 2013/04/23
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper,
Janek Warchoł <=
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, David Kastrup, 2013/04/23
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, Janek Warchoł, 2013/04/23
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, Urs Liska, 2013/04/23
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, David Kastrup, 2013/04/23
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, Carl Peterson, 2013/04/22
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, Christ van Willegen, 2013/04/23
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, David Kastrup, 2013/04/23
- Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2013/04/24
re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper, Peter Wannemacher, 2013/04/21